Neighbour's Wheelie Bin Damaged my Car

Quentin

undaunted wrote: »

Most people would consider £60 on a £600 claim fairly nominal I think.

Unless you expect to be the Judge in that case we have yet to see what the verdict would be or indeed whether there will ever be a hearing. I suspect that if / when Mercowner presented themselves as having been & still willing to be reasonable and the defendant as totally intransigent the Court would in reality try & guide them towards settling the matter via mediation & should they fail to listen they may not get a very sympathetic hearing when it went to a hearing

£60 on a £600 claim is 10%, though as pointed out to you, the actual minimum fee for a hearing over a £600 claim is £140 (23.5%).


It makes no difference how reasonable the claimant is, if there is no liability due to no negligence then no matter how intransigent the defendant is over settling via mediation (why would this defendant agree to any mediation?) the case will end in tears for the claimant!

undaunted

I'd consider 10% nominal. It could even be argued that 23.5% remains fairly nominal or worth a punt - though as I've said I don't personally believe that this will go to hearing if Mercowner stands their ground & pursues what is reasonable under the circumstances in my view. As to mediation, because A) if Judge doesn't want to be bothered with hearing it they might imply that mediation was a good way to resolve it without a hearing - thus avoiding costs for everyone. The neighbour might decide it isn't worth the hassle / they would rather not fall out with their neighbours for ever more when they could just be reasonable & offer to pay half. C) If they don't do so they might just lose despite what you think which would cost them more.

dacouch

I hope it goes before a judge and whilst trying to establish the facts of the case and where the starting place for the wheelie bin was.

Then he can ask the defendant "So where's your Wheelie Bin really been"

silverwhistle

undaunted wrote: »

It is not unreasonable to expect & ask the neighbour to either repair or remove a crumbling wall to prevent damage to your property.

But that is not the issue here.

In any case, if now, having bought it to their attention there is subsequent damage there maybe some negligence involved. Again, however, if the appellant really thought it were an issue they would be deemed partly responsible by continueing to park there and not mitigating their potential loss.

Enterprise_1701C

So you expect people to tie their bins down.

Do you keep your bin on the driveway, do you tie it down?

Things blow around, blame cannot always be laid at anyone's door, that is what your insurance is for.

MercOwner

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So you expect people to tie their bins down.

Do you keep your bin on the driveway, do you tie it down?

Things blow around, blame cannot always be laid at anyone's door, that is what your insurance is for.

No I don't tie it down, but I don't leave it where it could fall over and damage anyone's car either.

Daniel54

MercOwner wrote: »

No I don't tie it down, but I don't leave it where it could fall over and damage anyone's car either.

The possibility that a foreign object could be blown against your car is the subject matter of your insurance -that's one of the coverages granted under your policy.You can blame God but you can't hold him liable.

For any court or adjudicator you would need to evidence that your neighbours should have been aware it was probable or highly probable ( possible is nowhere near enough) that the bin could be blown against your car on the day the damage was caused.

Additionally to claim on your own policy,the fact that accidental damage has been caused is sufficient.

To subrogate the claim against your neighbours,you will also need to evidence proximate cause i.e. that it was the wind that caused the bin to fall over,and not some some other external force such as a youth giving it a good kick.

The possibility that your insurance premiums might increase if you make a claim on your own policy will be ignored in any consideration of the claim,which will be based on indemnity.

As other insurance practitioners have told you in this already long thread, this is in insurance terms clearly a no fault claim and you can either choose to claim on your insurance or not.Your chances of proving liability against your neighbours are zero.

glentoran99

MercOwner wrote: »

No I don't tie it down, but I don't leave it where it could fall over and damage anyone's car either.

So where do you leave it on bin day then?

unheard

I agree with many of the posters - there is no negligence involved.

Put it this way - a car drove into my work car park, parked next to my car, then their car caught fire (electrical?).

They have been found NOT NEGLIGENT - so I have had my NCD affected and lost my excess. Fortunately I requested the voluntary excess to be removed, so I only paid £100. BUT that was a £100 that I was not expecting to have been out of pocket PLUS the time off work and additional costs. With the insurance route - you will be paying.

magpiecottage

Of course, what none of us has discussed is when this becomes an incident that the OP must report to their insurer.

From the neighbour's point of view, it is of no consequence to their motor insurance as it has nothing to do with the existence, let alone the use, of their vehicle.

Obviously if the OP claims on their own insurance, this will be considered in the calculation of their premium at renewal.

If they commence legal action (even if they lose) then it becomes an incident that must be reported to the insurer.

On the other hand, minor scratches and "dings" from stuff that is flying about is arguably just wear and tear that need not be.

Obviously, this might depend on how bad the damage is but the OP would do well to consider whether it can reasonably be put down to wear and tear.